It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme court to decide how far gun rights extend

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court revived the legal battle over gun rights in America, saying it would decide whether the constitutional right of individuals to own firearms trumped state and local laws.

In a brief order on Wednesday, the court said it would settle the question by ruling in a dispute over a strict gun control law in Chicago that bans the ownership of handguns in most cases.

Individuals and gun rights groups had challenged the law.

Eighty percent of Chicago's 510 murders in 2008 were committed with guns -- among them 34 Chicago schoolchildren.

Gun control advocates said the decision was no surprise. They expected the court would merely reinforce last year's ruling upholding a constitutional right to bear arms narrowly limited to guns in the home for self-defense.


Source




posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
well its in the constitution which should hold priority over everything.

i do however believe in some rules, but if you are a law abiding citizen there should be no limits on your personal arsenal.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
My eyes are on this one for sure. Thanks, Phi.





posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Will be most interesting to see how they view the issue.

Hope they take into consideration the population of the Chicago area. That 80% quoted in the article looks bad at first glance. But how many people live in the Chicago area? I also find it bias that they point out the school children.


The Chicago metropolitan area increased by nearly 73,000 people from July 2007 to July 2008, making the population 9.6 million.

Chicago had the seventh-largest population increase in the country, according to the Census.

Cook County, home to Chicago, was the second-most populous county in the country, with 5.3 million residents.


www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Honestly, what part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand? Every person of every state should be able to buy and openly carry guns.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by phi1618
well its in the constitution which should hold priority over everything.

i do however believe in some rules, but if you are a law abiding citizen there should be no limits on your personal arsenal.


Dont agree to that. Human beings are impredictable animals, you will not know when someone snaps and go crazy as happenned in many school attacks. Anyway, if one is law abiding citizens they wont have a need for unlimited arsenal. You can't buy AK-47's or kalashnikovs lol just coz you think you are law abiding. There should be a limit to fire arm.
Imo a person should be issued a firearm if he can prove he is in some major risk-like rich businessman, merchants, traders, jewellery showroom owners, high ranking officials etc or someone who received threat to life or people who are in security business like guards etc. Otherwise all fire arms should be banned from public.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by phi1618
 


and here all this time I thoguht it was pretty clearly spelled out in the constitution that we had the right to bear arms. All arms.

what now, are they going to say it means BB guns and .22 caliber or less?





posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain

Originally posted by phi1618
well its in the constitution which should hold priority over everything.

i do however believe in some rules, but if you are a law abiding citizen there should be no limits on your personal arsenal.


Dont agree to that. Human beings are impredictable animals, you will not know when someone snaps and go crazy as happenned in many school attacks. Anyway, if one is law abiding citizens they wont have a need for unlimited arsenal. You can't buy AK-47's or kalashnikovs lol just coz you think you are law abiding. There should be a limit to fire arm.
Imo a person should be issued a firearm if he can prove he is in some major risk-like rich businessman, merchants, traders, jewellery showroom owners, high ranking officials etc or someone who received threat to life or people who are in security business like guards etc. Otherwise all fire arms should be banned from public.


Oh, of course! Only the upper classes should be allowed guns since
they have real property to protect unlike us lower classes who own
little but our own lives. Spot on! Perhaps we can arrange a nice hunt
for you and your bourgeois friends through the ghettos. You can
shoot slumdwellers from the comfort of an armored humvee while
your personal attendant serves you chilled martinis.


I pray you're not an American because if you are you've been cheated
out of an education on what the Constitution says. I'm not going to bother
with listing WHY or HOW I enjoy my Constitutional rights because frankly
that's none of your business.

You trample on my rights and I can find one of yours to trample on; for
instance Free Speech.

Shut up! You have no right to talk or write on ATS!! Unless you have
something intelligent to say you shouldnt be allowed to communicate in
any way, fashion or form.

That should bother you the same as what you wrote bothered me. Yes, I
was trampling on your rights GUARANTEED by the Constitution and given
to you by GOD. You were attempting to do the same to me. Respect my
rights and I will respect yours since they are one and the same. We
cannot pick and choose our rights or those of others. Unless we all defend
ALL of our rights we shall surely lose them, one at a time.
Really December rain, where did you learn that idea about gun ownership?
Sorry to sound like Bill O'reilly on you but I did so to make a point, no
personal offense was intended.


[edit on 30-9-2009 by Asktheanimals]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain

Originally posted by phi1618
well its in the constitution which should hold priority over everything.

i do however believe in some rules, but if you are a law abiding citizen there should be no limits on your personal arsenal.


Dont agree to that. Human beings are impredictable animals, you will not know when someone snaps and go crazy as happenned in many school attacks. Anyway, if one is law abiding citizens they wont have a need for unlimited arsenal. You can't buy AK-47's or kalashnikovs lol just coz you think you are law abiding. There should be a limit to fire arm.
Imo a person should be issued a firearm if he can prove he is in some major risk-like rich businessman, merchants, traders, jewellery showroom owners, high ranking officials etc or someone who received threat to life or people who are in security business like guards etc. Otherwise all fire arms should be banned from public.


Actually, in this case, you can buy AK's, providing you pay the appropriate taxes and file the appropriate paperwork with ATF, and you go through an FFL. At least, thats how it is in OH, AFAIK.

Emphasis mine



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
SECOND AMENDMENT

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"

Second Amendment Foundation

Individual state laws Included.

*I for one, wasn't exactly sure what the state laws were in reference to the Amendment, so there you have it...*

ETA: take time to read the state laws and take note of which states include specifications regarding military and what those specifications are... quite interesting.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by LadySkadi]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by KSPigpen
 


Yep...You kow if our gun rights get taken then Martial Law is soon to follow...



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 



My sympathies are with you. And no it did not bothered me what you said, thats your opinion and I stated mine. I still hold firm to my opinion.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
If the Gov wanted to play by the rules, they would allow the constution to stand and allow anyone in the US unrestricted access to firearms. We have that right. Says nothing about ammunition.

In Texas, we can own weapons. I've owned the same 1911, .308, and 12-gauge since I was ten. These three weapons will get passed down to my kids as well. Owning them was never a problem for me, as I couldn't purchase the ammo for them until I was 18. Any time they were fired, my old man had to buy the rounds and he kept careful watch on that ammo.

Now, I have to have a permit for the 1911 but there is zero documentation required to keep the shotty or rifle.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
The Supreme Court should have clarified the Second Amendment the last time around.

For these guys to have law degrees, and supposedly be so intelligent and learned, they sure are stupid.

Everyone should be allowed their firearms, and if you don't want open carry in a city, then fine - allow for concealed carry.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain


Dont agree to that. Human beings are impredictable animals, you will not know when someone snaps and go crazy as happenned in many school attacks. Anyway, if one is law abiding citizens they wont have a need for unlimited arsenal. You can't buy AK-47's or kalashnikovs lol just coz you think you are law abiding. There should be a limit to fire arm.
Imo a person should be issued a firearm if he can prove he is in some major risk-like rich businessman, merchants, traders, jewellery showroom owners, high ranking officials etc or someone who received threat to life or people who are in security business like guards etc. Otherwise all fire arms should be banned from public.


How elitist of you. So, what part do you play in the New World Order?



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Ban handguns? Supreme Court taking a new look


WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court says it will take up a challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns, opening the way for a ruling that could set off a vigorous new campaign to roll back state and local gun controls across the nation.

Victory for gun-rights proponents in the Chicago case is considered likely, even by supporters of gun control, in the latest battle in the nation's long and often bitter dispute over the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. A ruling against the city's outright ban could lead to legal challenges to less-restrictive laws across the country that limit who can own guns, whether firearms must be registered and how they should be stored.

The case is to be argued early next year.



LINK to the rest of the source from Yahoo.
Supreme Court to ban guns




Well here we have it. Everything is getting stripped from us Left to Right! We are so sick of our governments trying to take everything away from us. Now they want to ban guns across the U.S. well don't get me wrong but Doctors "accidently" kills more people them gun owners. I remember someone posted some numbers on that but i will get back to you on that one. TPTB are doing EVERYTHING they can to inslave us BUT i do believing one thing... the way they treat us KARMA its going to happen 10 folds and you can bet that.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain
. You can't buy AK-47's or kalashnikovs lol just coz you think you are law abiding. There should be a limit to fire arm.
Imo a person should be issued a firearm if he can prove he is in some major risk-like rich businessman, merchants, traders, jewellery showroom owners, high ranking officials etc or someone who received threat to life or people who are in security business like guards etc. Otherwise all fire arms should be banned from public.


BTW, as long as you follow the rules you can buy full auto weapons now- they are just very expensive,require a tax stamp, ATF and local LEO approval as long as you are in an area where they are approved for ownership.

So you are creating a special class of person that could any weapon out there. I do not see where that would help keep America free. How about people that go hunting?

[edit on 30-9-2009 by ShadowMaster]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
should this even be a controversial topic? the Constitution should not be up fo0r debate



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by refuse2lose2nwo
 


And yet, it is. It is going to be debated by the only Authority who can rule it out of the Constitution. They are not supposed to be able to do this, but thanks to everything that's happened from the inception of the Constitution to today, our corrupt legal system can now do any thing they please.

It's time for an overhaul.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join